ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 2020 elections , democratic party , presidential candidates

Reply
Old 21st October 2019, 11:17 AM   #1721
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 76,514
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Microtargeting and messaging are completely different things, but okay.
And?

Poor messaging is obvious. Those links went to the whole picture. The Democrats get killed during most campaigns and it's incomprehensible they don't hire marketing experts.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 11:18 AM   #1722
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 76,514
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
It's richly and hilariously ironic that you're saying that in the context of a frontrunner whose basic message is "Dream Big, Fight Hard", when your preferred candidates, who are doing quite poorly indeed, seem to be sticking to something more like "Aim Low, Let the Republicans Come to You."
Did it work for Bernie?

That's an absurd false dichotomy, BTW.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 11:49 AM   #1723
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Moderator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 12,964
Mod Warning Knock it off with the personalisation, please.
Posted By:Agatha
__________________
Why can't you be more like Agatha? - Loss Leader
Agatha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 12:13 PM   #1724
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,847
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Despite all the shade being cast on Mayor Pete hereabouts -- sans one shred of specific evidence -- he's the one candidate that got a bounce from the last debate, according to a recent poll.

Buttigieg surges in Iowa poll
Every time I've heard him speak he's impressed the hell out of me. He's not as liberal as many people would like though. If he wasn't gay, I'm pretty sure he would be the frontrunner. Eloguent, erudite, clean cut, a military veteran, middle America.

You gotta wonder how Muslim countries would react. I mean this person would be stoned in many of them.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 02:50 PM   #1725
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,328
Looks like Pete's been in the #3 spot in Iowa since early October:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...rimary-d/iowa/
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 04:11 PM   #1726
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 76,514
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
The electibility argument always struck me as a bit speculative. "please vote for this candidate in the primary, despite not really liking him very much, because other voters in the general will like him more than you do".

I'm not in the mind reading business when I vote. I can't know if some empty suit like Buttigieg will appeal to some MAGA chud in Ohio or not. I only know that Buttigieg strikes me, personally, as totally uninteresting.

In the the wake of the HRC failure, I am deeply skeptical of the appeal of technocratic centrists. It is becoming increasingly clear that they strike most everyone, left and right, as terribly unappealing.
You have to admit electability is unusually important this go round.

And as far as Clinton, I don't think winning by 3 million votes and still losing by a couple thousand in three states means she was unappealing.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 04:37 PM   #1727
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 76,514
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
It's rare, sure, but the conditions were favorable for a continued D hold of the executive. Obama was very popular throughout his term and HRC benefited as his successor.

Trump was a uniquely weak candidate and HRC still lost.
Let's get back to the 2020 election here and the elephant in the room that you seem to have forgotten: foreign intervention and a massive pro-Trump social media campaign is going to happen again.

Zuckerberg already made an excuse so he doesn't have to police outright false campaign ads from FaceBook under the faux pretense of free speech. And I doubt it's a coincidence that Warren is threatening to break up big monopolies like FaceBook while Trump gave wealthy people like Zuckerberg and his friends a huge tax break.

At least the media isn't covering every minute of Trump's Nuremburg rallies. Let's hope that doesn't change, but it wouldn't surprise me if Trump started saying things even more outrageous at those rallies to garner more free publicity.

Someone needs to start asking these candidates what their plans are to combat massive ads and other sharing of items on social media that push GOP propaganda.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 04:45 PM   #1728
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 76,514
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
USA Today notes that it may be a three-person race in Iowa, but not the three we thought, as Pete Buttigieg elbows his way past Bernie into third place.

Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg has apparently given Buttigieg some advice on campaign hires.
Interesting considering FaceBook refused to take down false claims about the Bidens' corruption.

Maybe they are sleeper cells (I know, I know, no evidence) or maybe Zuck isn't pro-Trump after all.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 05:07 PM   #1729
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,847
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Interesting considering FaceBook refused to take down false claims about the Bidens' corruption.

Maybe they are sleeper cells (I know, I know, no evidence) or maybe Zuck isn't pro-Trump after all.
Zuck is pro money. He's a selfish centered prick. He made a fortune in the last election off the Russians and he doesn't want to jeopardize that revenue stream.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 05:55 PM   #1730
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 45,910
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Let's get back to the 2020 election here and the elephant in the room that you seem to have forgotten: foreign intervention and a massive pro-Trump social media campaign is going to happen again.

Zuckerberg already made an excuse so he doesn't have to police outright false campaign ads from FaceBook under the faux pretense of free speech. And I doubt it's a coincidence that Warren is threatening to break up big monopolies like FaceBook while Trump gave wealthy people like Zuckerberg and his friends a huge tax break.

At least the media isn't covering every minute of Trump's Nuremburg rallies. Let's hope that doesn't change, but it wouldn't surprise me if Trump started saying things even more outrageous at those rallies to garner more free publicity.

Someone needs to start asking these candidates what their plans are to combat massive ads and other sharing of items on social media that push GOP propaganda.
Problem for Trump is th emore outrageous things he says, the more he drives away everybody who is not already a member of the his cult.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 06:23 PM   #1731
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,328
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Problem for Trump is th emore outrageous things he says, the more he drives away everybody who is not already a member of the his cult.
Everyone not driven away is now already at least functionally a member of the cult.

His campaign will now focus on delivering to them outrageous crap that gets them fired up, so ensure that as many of them as possible vote.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 06:41 PM   #1732
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,847
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Problem for Trump is th emore outrageous things he says, the more he drives away everybody who is not already a member of the his cult.
You're kinda of touching on a theory of mine. Everyone focuses on that Trump hasn't lost much support. I think this is nonsense. Trump may not have seen his base erode much. But he won the election with more than his base. Swing voters that were willing to give him a try.

My theory is as much as Trump may have solidified his base, he has expanded and solidified the opposition. Sometimes he could ill afford to do.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 07:22 PM   #1733
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 76,514
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Problem for Trump is th emore outrageous things he says, the more he drives away everybody who is not already a member of the his cult.
But all he has to do is make the Democratic nominee more scary and awful than he is.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 09:15 PM   #1734
ArchSas
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 196
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
You're kinda of touching on a theory of mine. Everyone focuses on that Trump hasn't lost much support. I think this is nonsense. Trump may not have seen his base erode much. But he won the election with more than his base. Swing voters that were willing to give him a try.

My theory is as much as Trump may have solidified his base, he has expanded and solidified the opposition. Sometimes he could ill afford to do.
In regards to the sentence I highlighted: Did he though? Due to low voter turnout combined with his popular vote loss, Trump was able to win the presidency with votes from only about 27 percent of eligible voters in the country. That's incredibly low, lower than most estimates of his base (which I usually see around 30%), or usual figures for his approval rating.

That's not to discount your assertion. If anything, I agree with it overall - Trump does seem to be alienating potential voters, if the growing popularity of impeachment is any indication. But I've always been skeptical of the narrative that Trump was able to win the election by motivating a bunch of swing voters. His support has always existed somewhere in that 25-30-ish percentage of voters, as far as I've seen. Based on the numbers, it's always looked to me like voter apathy did Trump a huge favor and allowed him to squeak by thanks to support from his base, and the disproportionate effect of that support in the electoral college. He's losing popularity, and that's worse for him than I think most people realize, because Trump has never seemed to have much support outside of his base.

Last edited by ArchSas; 21st October 2019 at 09:19 PM.
ArchSas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 10:11 PM   #1735
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,297
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Did anyone see that horrendous story about McConnell holding a decades long grudge because Bork wasn't confirmed, which McConnell then got his revenge by blocking Obama's rightful SCOTUS nomination?

Could be McConnell's hatred of Obama had something to do with it as well. I'd bet you McConnell dislikes blacks. I'd guess he was racist but he's married to an Asian. Is there a name for that? Selective racism?
To go back a few days:

First, this sounds like bog-standard white supremacism. Light-skinned Asians, as well as white Hispanic people and *sometimes* white jews, can be folded in to some extent. The key element of US-style white supremacism, again, is to rob black and native Americans of wealth, and to transfer it to some white Americans - who exactly gets to count as "white" is necessarily somewhat flexible.

There's a reason why no less than Jackie Robinson, lifelong republican, stated that the 1964 GOP convention made him understand what it was like to be a jew in the Third Reich.

Second, you're underestimating McConnell. He was, at one point, relatively willing to stand behind civil rights. Now, he's running cover for overt white nationalists and white supremacists. The actual key is to remember that, when miners from his state wanted to discuss their raided pensions with him, he showed up for under one minute - just long enough to tell them "**** off, I'm supporting the pension raiders." He's not about white supremacism, he's about mantaining a wealthy oligarchy. Dolt 45's open hatred of nonwhite people, the pro-Jim Crow judges he keeps voting for, the voter suppression he loves, the pensions and health care he willfully denies to his own voters - those are to line his pockets, and those of his elite friends.

In other words, as I keep saying, he's vastly more dangerous than Cheeto Benito, because he's capable of engineering a brutal society, while the idiot in the oval office couldn't run the smoothie stall at the local mall's food court.
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 12:03 AM   #1736
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 23,342
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I could go on and on. I have gone on and on. Some of our dear members in this forum are smart. But they don't get it. The DNC doesn't get it. Some of them get it, but I don't know, maybe they like Sanders or Warren too much to take a closer more critical look.
Be careful, SG, you might pull a muscle patting yourself on the back.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 12:09 AM   #1737
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 23,342
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
An election between him and these bozos is not what I want.
Rather than telling us what you *don't* want, tell us what you'd like to see. Who should the Dems run? The GOP?
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 12:15 AM   #1738
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 76,514
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
Be careful, SG, you might pull a muscle patting yourself on the back.
I'd rather people just listen to me and make their own efforts to understand what Lakoff was referring to when he said the GOP gets it and the Democrats don't.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 12:15 AM   #1739
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 23,342
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
A "milquetoast technocrat" without much of a history- or with a "milquetoast" history would be the best bet against a mainstream Republican, and I think will also have the best chance against Trump. Someone the right can't portray as wanting to "give everything away".
Name names.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 12:17 AM   #1740
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 76,514
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
Rather than telling us what you *don't* want, tell us what you'd like to see. Who should the Dems run? The GOP?
If I had my dream candidate it would have been Tammy Duckworth, not Harris or Klobuchar.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 12:18 AM   #1741
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 23,342
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
Campaigning is then, in your opinion, nothing more than an excercise in motivating the base?
Pretty much, yeah.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 12:20 AM   #1742
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 23,342
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
The Dems objectively and provably have stances and policies that are supported by a majority of Americans. If they could just like... push those with some balls instead of freaking out about their pet projects like a kid that got too much sugar every time they get the smallest amount of power they would be unbeatable.
Hear! Hear!
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 12:29 AM   #1743
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 23,342
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
The Presidency is different, in that it is the only elected position that needs to secure votes in rural Wyoming, Hawaii, and Manhattan.
We know that's not true. How many rallies are held in "rural Wyoming"? Wyoming has too few electoral votes to matter. The same is true, for example, with California. Its electoral votes are as good as already cast. Same with Alabama. There are only about 6 states that really matter and they get (a guess) 80% of the attention.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 12:55 AM   #1744
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,030
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I'd rather people just listen to me and make their own efforts to understand what Lakoff was referring to when he said the GOP gets it and the Democrats don't.
The framing BS? Look, the guy is a linguistics expert, but his political science expertise is negligible. It's been 15 years since Don't Think of An Elephant came out. Lakoff himself is far left; he's currrently drawing pay from a Spanish socialist party according to his Wikipedia bio. Of course he is going to market silly claims that the far left could sweep to victory if only they used the phrasing he suggests.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 01:26 AM   #1745
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,030
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
We know that's not true. How many rallies are held in "rural Wyoming"? Wyoming has too few electoral votes to matter. The same is true, for example, with California. Its electoral votes are as good as already cast. Same with Alabama. There are only about 6 states that really matter and they get (a guess) 80% of the attention.
I suspect both sides will have a fair amount of rallies in California, if only to raise the dough. There are more than six swing states that matter and even the small ones might in a close election.

States that went by 5% or less in the 2016 election to either candidate: Arizona, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Aside from Maine, Nevada (for now) and New Hampshire those are electoral college vote-rich states. And that's ignoring traditional battleground states like Missouri and Ohio, which I guarantee the candidates will not do.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 01:52 AM   #1746
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,813
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
The framing BS? Look, the guy is a linguistics expert, but his political science expertise is negligible. It's been 15 years since Don't Think of An Elephant came out. Lakoff himself is far left; he's currrently drawing pay from a Spanish socialist party according to his Wikipedia bio. Of course he is going to market silly claims that the far left could sweep to victory if only they used the phrasing he suggests.
Hmmm...looking into this, if anyone seems to have been following Lakoffís advice it would be Andrew Yang whose ďfreedom dividendĒ seems to be exactly the type of thing Lakoff might have labeled.

Framing is definitely not entirely irrelevant. There has been some pretty solid cognitive science that demonstrates people make different decisions depending on how dilemmas are framed. People seem to have a bigger aversion for losses than they do enthusiasm for gains, for example (and interestingly, there is a foreign language effect in which someone being asked questions such as those on their second language are less affected by framing).

But, I am skeptical that there is a lot of hard evidence for a large effect on framing. There are so many other variables that can come into play about how people make decisions. From what I remember about the post-Morten of last election, people who voted for Trump almost overwhelmingly did so because...drum roll... they were Republicans and he was their candidate!

That still leaves the important swings in key areas which could be down to various reasons, but among them was the possibility that people there didnít like Clinton, or that she hadnít campaigned hard enough in those states whereas Trump was much active. Could that have been overconfidence? There certainly was overconfidence in a lot of areas. Also, the Comey letter probably had an effect. And then there are various other pet theories which have lower credibility but which are sometimes just as stridently claimed - Trump was taller than Clinton; Trumpís a man; Trump appealed to the racists and thatís what persuaded them that he was their guy when previously it had been Obama etc...

But finally, the strong interpretation of Lakoffian framing (assuming that is what is being put forward) is that the electorate are mindless automatons who just respond to sound bites alone. Of course, we are talking about other voters here, right? Not is! Weíre skeptics and we can see through the smokescreen thatís employed by others. But letís crank up the smokescreen machine anyway because thatís all the voters know!
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 03:07 AM   #1747
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,030
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Hmmm...looking into this, if anyone seems to have been following Lakoff’s advice it would be Andrew Yang whose “freedom dividend” seems to be exactly the type of thing Lakoff might have labeled.
Everything old is new again; IIRC George McGovern proposed a $1000 a year benefit to everybody.

Quote:
Framing is definitely not entirely irrelevant. There has been some pretty solid cognitive science that demonstrates people make different decisions depending on how dilemmas are framed. People seem to have a bigger aversion for losses than they do enthusiasm for gains, for example (and interestingly, there is a foreign language effect in which someone being asked questions such as those on their second language are less affected by framing).
Nobody denies that framing can affect decisions. The obvious one is the .99/1.99/2.99 kind of pricing.

Quote:
But, I am skeptical that there is a lot of hard evidence for a large effect on framing. There are so many other variables that can come into play about how people make decisions. From what I remember about the post-Morten of last election, people who voted for Trump almost overwhelmingly did so because...drum roll... they were Republicans and he was their candidate!
And framing can only work so far. Warren has gotten a lot of blowback over her refusal to admit that her plan would increase taxes on the middle class, even from a very sympathetic media.

Quote:
That still leaves the important swings in key areas which could be down to various reasons, but among them was the possibility that people there didn’t like Clinton, or that she hadn’t campaigned hard enough in those states whereas Trump was much active. Could that have been overconfidence? There certainly was overconfidence in a lot of areas. Also, the Comey letter probably had an effect. And then there are various other pet theories which have lower credibility but which are sometimes just as stridently claimed - Trump was taller than Clinton; Trump’s a man; Trump appealed to the racists and that’s what persuaded them that he was their guy when previously it had been Obama etc...

But finally, the strong interpretation of Lakoffian framing (assuming that is what is being put forward) is that the electorate are mindless automatons who just respond to sound bites alone. Of course, we are talking about other voters here, right? Not is! We’re skeptics and we can see through the smokescreen that’s employed by others. But let’s crank up the smokescreen machine anyway because that’s all the voters know
!

Not sure what to say here. Yes there is a lot of BS flowing out of both sides in an election year. The point I would make about Lakoff is that his theories got a lot of attention about 15 years ago, and they seem to be largely dormant these days.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

Last edited by Brainster; 22nd October 2019 at 03:12 AM.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 03:30 AM   #1748
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,157
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I'd rather people just listen to me
Why, though?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 04:16 AM   #1749
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,813
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Everything old is new again; IIRC George McGovern proposed a $1000 a year benefit to everybody.
Ah! But how was his framing?

Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Nobody denies that framing can affect decisions. The obvious one is the .99/1.99/2.99 kind of pricing.



And framing can only work so far. Warren has gotten a lot of blowback over her refusal to admit that her plan would increase taxes on the middle class, even from a very sympathetic media.
Thatís exactly what I am saying.
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
!

Not sure what to say here. Yes there is a lot of BS flowing out of both sides in an election year. The point I would make about Lakoff is that his theories got a lot of attention about 15 years ago, and they seem to be largely dormant these days.
Maybe you are assuming we are disagreeing or that I am debating this with you. Iím not. Iím just adding my two yen for what they are worth.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 08:54 AM   #1750
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,847
Originally Posted by ArchSas View Post
In regards to the sentence I highlighted: Did he though? Due to low voter turnout combined with his popular vote loss, Trump was able to win the presidency with votes from only about 27 percent of eligible voters in the country. That's incredibly low, lower than most estimates of his base (which I usually see around 30%), or usual figures for his approval rating.

That's not to discount your assertion. If anything, I agree with it overall - Trump does seem to be alienating potential voters, if the growing popularity of impeachment is any indication. But I've always been skeptical of the narrative that Trump was able to win the election by motivating a bunch of swing voters. His support has always existed somewhere in that 25-30-ish percentage of voters, as far as I've seen. Based on the numbers, it's always looked to me like voter apathy did Trump a huge favor and allowed him to squeak by thanks to support from his base, and the disproportionate effect of that support in the electoral college. He's losing popularity, and that's worse for him than I think most people realize, because Trump has never seemed to have much support outside of his base.
No question about this. I agree and we saw the results at the midterms. Voter turnout is imperative. How many people thought that Hillary was going to win and didn't vote? My guess is a lot more than who will admit it.

But nailing down why he won on a single reason is folly IMO. It's like a football game won by a single point on 50 yard field goal on the last play. Sure, you could blame it on the kicker but the game was 60 minutes long. A missed tackle here, a holding penalty there and the outcome could be changed.

I really believe the GOP is in for a shellacking in 2020. The worst thing they can do is defend this guy. They need to accept that Trump is corrupt and impeach him with an overwhelming vote. Then they have a 10 months to rehabilitate their brand. Otherwise they look dishonest and pathetic.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 09:05 AM   #1751
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,157
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I really believe the GOP is in for a shellacking in 2020. The worst thing they can do is defend this guy. They need to accept that Trump is corrupt and impeach him with an overwhelming vote. Then they have a 10 months to rehabilitate their brand. Otherwise they look dishonest and pathetic.
That's the question: would they care, and would looking pathetic to you and me mean that they look great to enough people to get elected again?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 09:23 AM   #1752
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,847
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
That's the question: would they care, and would looking pathetic to you and me mean that they look great to enough people to get elected again?
That is the question. That was also the question during the midterms. Trump couldn't resist making every race about him and every Democrat was fine with that strategy. The result? Republicans lost 40 seats.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 09:34 AM   #1753
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,157
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Trump couldn't resist making every race about him
Why wouldn't he? He did capture all of ISIS by himself, personally.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 10:27 AM   #1754
The_Animus
Illuminator
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,080
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
You have to admit electability is unusually important this go round.

And as far as Clinton, I don't think winning by 3 million votes and still losing by a couple thousand in three states means she was unappealing.
That's true. A better measure that she was unappealing was that 2016 was a very high turnout election but she received the same or less votes than in recent elections where turnout was lower. Votes for 3rd party candidates were 4x higher than recent elections because neither Trump nor Clinton was terribly appealing.
The_Animus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 10:31 AM   #1755
The_Animus
Illuminator
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,080
Speaking of Clinton

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nyt...-2020.amp.html

Quote:
When a half-dozen Democratic donors gathered at the Whitby Hotel in Manhattan last week, the dinner began with a discussion of which presidential candidates the contributors liked. But as conversations among influential Democrats often go these days, the meeting quickly evolved into a discussion of who was not in the race ó but could be lured in.

Would Hillary Clinton get in, the contributors wondered, and how about Michael R. Bloomberg, the former New York mayor?
Anyone who wants Clinton to get into the race is completely out of touch in my opinion.
The_Animus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 10:33 AM   #1756
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,157
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
Anyone who wants Clinton to get into the race is completely out of touch in my opinion.
I can't believe anyone in their right mind would want her to run again.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 10:49 AM   #1757
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 23,296
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I can't believe anyone in their right mind would want her to run again.
Trump might. Oh, you said "in their right mind".
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 11:46 AM   #1758
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 3,253
Bernie Sanders says Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will work in his administration if he's president
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 12:04 PM   #1759
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 76,514
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
The framing BS? ....
See, this is the problem, people don't get it how advanced and significant marketing science actually is.

And it doesn't make a lick of difference which party Lakoff supports. I cited Rove and Luntz, both staunch Republicans as well.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 22nd October 2019 at 12:07 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 12:08 PM   #1760
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 76,514
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Why, though?
Cherry pick quotes much?
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:57 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.